ESOCommunity

watching wrote:Starcraft 2 has building rotation and over there it adds to competitive play especially because of how the terrain is and how you can create choke points. To a lesser extent it can be used in AOE:III too to create choke points. It's a feature that should be in any game that has a "building stuff" mechanic because it adds to diversity and creativity. No one should be forced to build something in a certain direction when it can be done otherwise, thats just bad design. I hope they will include the building rotation and at the same time improve on how the buildings look when you rotate them, because right now they look kinda weird when they are placed in a different way than the game intended.

Back when I played, SC2 did not have building rotation. I have not played any LotV however, did they change it? Honestly I'd be surprised if they had.

There is definitely no building rotation in competitive SC2 play. Either that or the pros don't use it. There isn't in AoE2 either. The reason is fairly obvious and was explained earlier ITT by Mitoe.

One thing I think they could change and would improve the game in the eyes of many naysayers is removing decks and HC levels.
Removing HC levels is a nobrainer, removing decks less so. My reasoning: I think the fact that you need to commit to a certain (fairly large, admittedly) selection of strategies before the game begins is bad game design. It's not much of an issue with 25-card decks but it's still there to some extent. I also don't like how easily scoutable certain strategies (e.g. FI) are by looking at the opponent's deck. In short, the existence of decks doesn't add options, it removes them.

I know this is a minor issue to anyone who actually plays the game, but every time I see people argue that AoE3 is a shitty game they bring this up. They say "I don't like that you are committed to a single strategy before the game starts" which is non sense of course, and they say "I don't like how certain decks counter others" which is also non sense, but nevertheless if you remove decks you might gain these people's interest.

But how will AOE3 be AOE3 without decks?

I could live with the removal of the 'seeing other people's decks' option.

Still I have been fooled by waterdecks and get a rush on my base, so even that could be said to add depth.

Asateo wrote:But how will AOE3 be AOE3 without decks?

Why does it need decks? Your "deck" would become the entire selection of cards for that civ. You could still have decks as a way to shortcut to cards you use very often, but imo you should always have the option to send any card. I know that to many AoE3 players it's a mechanic that they have come to appreciate, but it's also one I think we can all live without and it might just convince many naysayers to give the game another try.

Maybe some cards should be restricted to some maps

No deck would be interesting but generally 25 card decks are enough to leave all options available.
It only requires a bit of optimization and it introduces stuff like deck reading while also preventing opposite strats to be equally viable (impossible to read).

The thing is many cards are not avaible anyway, so if a beginner sends cows or air balloons it s just bad regardless of the option. However i agree its bad that you show your strat in the beginning by deck. There for i think showing oppenent deck should have a cost, either by resource or building. For example for 100 gold, or after you have a tp; best is when you build church imo.

Goodspeed wrote:One thing I think they could change and would improve the game in the eyes of many naysayers is removing decks and HC levels.
Removing HC levels is a nobrainer, removing decks less so. My reasoning: I think the fact that you need to commit to a certain (fairly large, admittedly) selection of strategies before the game begins is bad game design. It's not much of an issue with 25-card decks but it's still there to some extent. I also don't like how easily scoutable certain strategies (e.g. FI) are by looking at the opponent's deck. In short, the existence of decks doesn't add options, it removes them.

I know this is a minor issue to anyone who actually plays the game, but every time I see people argue that AoE3 is a shitty game they bring this up. They say "I don't like that you are committed to a single strategy before the game starts" which is non sense of course, and they say "I don't like how certain decks counter others" which is also non sense, but nevertheless if you remove decks you might gain these people's interest.

I actually LOVE this idea, I'm totally on board.

Alternatively increasing to 40 (10/age) would help as well and keep it more organized. Rebalancing some cards to age 1 would be needed because I dont think you could fill it out now in any semi useful manner.

Double post

Also keep in mind when people make those comments, decks were 20 cards only forever. Moving to 25 was a huge improvement.

I seriously doubt they will do much more than update the gfx engine, servers, and a few clitches and that's it. Why should they bother making all these changes as proposed? The constant argument whether the game is balanced or not seems to have been the main topic ever since launch in 2005. The game will never be balanced simply because it can't be done. There are too many civs and too many maps for this to happen.
On top of that - think about how many times a proposed change has been discussed over and over again. Some are pro some are not. It is simply impossible to do.

I have been against all these balance changes from day one. The game is what it is, and if you find a civ has a particular advantage utilize this knowledge to either play with them or refrain from playing against them. No one is forcing you to click go. The same can be said for map balance - if you find your hunts aren't up to your standards - resign and start a new game.

From a business perspective - why spend a lot of money trying to please a small community of players? Sure ESOC has done an excellent job keeping the community alive (and thanks alot for this) but this .DE version is not made solely for us. It is made in the hopes that some of the 100-thousands that bought the game in 2005-2008 would feel an urge to come back, create excitement, and grow the community with new players ready for AOE 4.

Well, while that's true one could make an argument that nowadays the competitive community is what drives the business for multiplayer video games.
Failing to cope with that means less $ for the company.

crjensen4 wrote:From a business perspective - why spend a lot of money trying to please a small community of players? Sure ESOC has done an excellent job keeping the community alive (and thanks alot for this) but this .DE version is not made solely for us. It is made in the hopes that some of the 100-thousands that bought the game in 2005-2008 would feel an urge to come back, create excitement, and grow the community with new players ready for AOE 4.

I feel like you just answered your own question.

Goodspeed wrote:There is definitely no building rotation in competitive SC2 play. Either that or the pros don't use it. There isn't in AoE2 either. The reason is fairly obvious and was explained earlier ITT by Mitoe.

One thing I think they could change and would improve the game in the eyes of many naysayers is removing decks and HC levels.
Removing HC levels is a nobrainer, removing decks less so. My reasoning: I think the fact that you need to commit to a certain (fairly large, admittedly) selection of strategies before the game begins is bad game design. It's not much of an issue with 25-card decks but it's still there to some extent. I also don't like how easily scoutable certain strategies (e.g. FI) are by looking at the opponent's deck. In short, the existence of decks doesn't add options, it removes them.

I know this is a minor issue to anyone who actually plays the game, but every time I see people argue that AoE3 is a shitty game they bring this up. They say "I don't like that you are committed to a single strategy before the game starts" which is non sense of course, and they say "I don't like how certain decks counter others" which is also non sense, but nevertheless if you remove decks you might gain these people's interest.

Horrible idea. Should you pick a very boomy/etc. deck you commit on something and you deserve to be awarded with that. If your port deck runs with 5 eco ups you deserve to have a better late game eco compared to the port player who puts the explorer card, rangefinding, ronin, 8 halbs and 600f in.
Also commiting under a TC with the knowledge that 5 ronin could pop up there *anytime* is just abnoxious.

It removes strategial options.
If you choose to not run 3 caravels in exchange for 1k coin you deserve to lose water.
If you decide to not put in CM, etc...
It seperates good players from worse players. Anticipation, adaption, game sense.

25 cards is all you're going to need in most games. It's only limiting for Fast industrial I guess, or if you're doubting between long colonial and fortress.

And it should be like that. Only thing that bothers me sometimes is the 10c/age restriction. But then again: it is a good game mechanic.

Elo Rating should be implemented and improved

Just to clarify for people who may be confused, I believe GoodSpeed is suggesting that by removing decks, you are instead given access to the entire homecity and every single card throughout the entire game. The shipment mechanic is still there, just not limited by how many cards you can have in your deck.

It's an interesting idea: it wouldn't really change the game that much (although certain civs may have siginificant lategame advantages if all cards are available at all times), and there are definitely pros to outweigh the cons, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to support such a drastic change. I think there could be a lot of unclear consequences of such a change; like water play—for example—would become much more versatile as people no longer need to sacrifice military shipments for their water cards.

Although, if it would bring a lot of new players to the game maybe I could be persuaded.

yeah the 10 cards an age restriction is annoying, though i guess Japan would be pretty OP without it as almost all their worthwhile cards are age 3.

anyways about balancing changes there need to be some, personally i am not really a fan of the direction ESOC patch is in so i hope they do it "scratch".

either way which ever team makes definitive edition will be a real programmer/developer team and not just some fans like forgotten empires is i am sure they can figure out balance from metrics etc.

jonasnee wrote:anyways about balancing changes there need to be some, personally i am not really a fan of the direction ESOC patch is in so i hope they do it "scratch".

Do you mind if I ask what you dislike about the EP approach?

Mitoe wrote:

jonasnee wrote:anyways about balancing changes there need to be some, personally i am not really a fan of the direction ESOC patch is in so i hope they do it "scratch".

Do you mind if I ask what you dislike about the EP approach?

i feel like it is a bit of a symptom treatment of 1 v 1 faction balance.

i feel like balancing units etc. should be done over nerfing small card bonuses. something like the yumi card changed seemed a bit weird to me, it didn't really seem to address what makes japan strong while seemingly nerfing a unit that more or less seem balanced.

i mean i am not against all of them, the treaty patch for example removes gendarme spam which definitely needed to happen (though i would argue the unit needs further nerfs, probably to the siege).

anyways, more buffs and nerf directly to units and buildings would be nice and maybe a bit broader view on balance like team-game balance. want my suggestion on fixing japan? make shrines more expensive to like 150 wood, it would actually fix the problem with japan which is their massive early game economy without nerfing them to badly in long team games and treaty where they aren't super OP. but idk im not a genius at AOE 3 only play it seldom these days but i wish some of the OP units got more directly nerfed and the UP units got buffed, even if they are in an already strong faction.

jonasnee wrote:

Mitoe wrote:

jonasnee wrote:anyways about balancing changes there need to be some, personally i am not really a fan of the direction ESOC patch is in so i hope they do it "scratch".

Do you mind if I ask what you dislike about the EP approach?

i feel like it is a bit of a symptom treatment of 1 v 1 faction balance.

i feel like balancing units etc. should be done over nerfing small card bonuses. something like the yumi card changed seemed a bit weird to me, it didn't really seem to address what makes japan strong while seemingly nerfing a unit that more or less seem balanced.

i mean i am not against all of them, the treaty patch for example removes gendarme spam which definitely needed to happen (though i would argue the unit needs further nerfs, probably to the siege).

anyways, more buffs and nerf directly to units and buildings would be nice and maybe a bit broader view on balance like team-game balance. want my suggestion on fixing japan? make shrines more expensive to like 150 wood, it would actually fix the problem with japan which is their massive early game economy without nerfing them to badly in long team games and treaty where they aren't super OP. but idk im not a genius at AOE 3 only play it seldom these days but i wish some of the OP units got more directly nerfed and the UP units got buffed, even if they are in an already strong faction.

The yumi card change was actually a request from team game players, and—usually—should not affect 1v1 very much.

Also, you want to nerf Japan even while most competitive players assert that the civ is actually quite weak: and their early game economy is not "massive," it's actually quite weak early on as Japan lacks a villager shipment and must gather from berries instead of hunts. They have the option to boom faster than other civs but it requires a large early game investment.

Anyway, this thread is not intended to discuss specific balance changes. I think for the most part EP actually handles changes the way you described: most of them are buffs or nerfs to specific units or buildings, and there are actually very few card changes that come to mind off the top of my head. In fact, I can't think of any changes to cards aside from the Japanese yumi card.

Are you able to elaborate more?

jonasnee wrote:

Mitoe wrote:

jonasnee wrote:anyways about balancing changes there need to be some, personally i am not really a fan of the direction ESOC patch is in so i hope they do it "scratch".

Do you mind if I ask what you dislike about the EP approach?

i feel like it is a bit of a symptom treatment of 1 v 1 faction balance.

i feel like balancing units etc. should be done over nerfing small card bonuses. something like the yumi card changed seemed a bit weird to me, it didn't really seem to address what makes japan strong while seemingly nerfing a unit that more or less seem balanced.

i mean i am not against all of them, the treaty patch for example removes gendarme spam which definitely needed to happen (though i would argue the unit needs further nerfs, probably to the siege).

anyways, more buffs and nerf directly to units and buildings would be nice and maybe a bit broader view on balance like team-game balance. want my suggestion on fixing japan? make shrines more expensive to like 150 wood, it would actually fix the problem with japan which is their massive early game economy without nerfing them to badly in long team games and treaty where they aren't super OP. but idk im not a genius at AOE 3 only play it seldom these days but i wish some of the OP units got more directly nerfed and the UP units got buffed, even if they are in an already strong faction.

I could avoid adressing the elephant in the room, but that would result in a useless discussion. You think the patch is bad because you think you get the balance while in fact you do not. Your Japan case is completely off actually. Japan is actually 'super OP' in long team games and they are actually really slow and weak in the early game. So obviously if you dont get that then you think the patch is bad, especially if your assesment of a civ is the opposite of basically all top players. Like how can you not seem yumi, in the later stages of the game, are super imbalanced? The nerf doesnt adress symptoms at all, it adresses the actual problem.

Interjection wrote:

crjensen4 wrote:From a business perspective - why spend a lot of money trying to please a small community of players? Sure ESOC has done an excellent job keeping the community alive (and thanks alot for this) but this .DE version is not made solely for us. It is made in the hopes that some of the 100-thousands that bought the game in 2005-2008 would feel an urge to come back, create excitement, and grow the community with new players ready for AOE 4.

I feel like you just answered your own question.

Could you elaborate?

I'm sorry but I'm really tired and will forget these ideas by the time I get to read the rest of the proposal.

Firstly, I like the homecity. I think what needs to happen is that all multi-player homecities have the opption.just are boosted to, say, 60 or max or have all cards/politicians unlocked. The homecity offers an easy way of incorporating some of the elements of other games so that you can keep introducing new content and making people have to work to get it... thus keeping them in the game for longer. Having all base cards or enough cards unlocked allows for this flexibility, as well as giving single-player a boost. I think we're pretty much on the same page, just that your solution is too crude.

Secondly. and again informed from my primarily single-player background... having some way of disabling mercenaries. Fixing the AI would be great but it would be so much easier I think and surprisingly effective just taking the simple (?) step of not letting the AI train mercs. This would be a new game option feature like the choice between classic or standard if you want to get rid of trade monopoly. Could have a problem with people banning mercs from the multiplayer scene but 90%+ people play with trade monopoly so just make it an opt out thing for those of us who really care... if it cannot be rendered as a option only for single player.

(In case it is unclear, the AI often tries to spam mercs of a single type. This is ultimately less effective for it than spamming its own units like it does in Nilla.)